Mast responds to accusations
Peggy Mast
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
I WANTED to respond to an accusation that was made at Eggs and Issues on Saturday, March 24. There was a great deal of discussion about Senate Bill 66 and gambling amendments that were offered through the day, on into the evening and into the early morning hours on Saturday.
The first amendment was a 98-page document that did not come before any member of the House until it was carried to the floor by Representative Aurand. He stated over and over again that he was not aware of its contents but was assured that it was a good deal. The amendment was initially written with the language stating the Kansas Bureau of Investigation would have oversight over the casinos and the tracks. It had somehow been amended and the oversight of KBI had been stricken. The language was replaced with the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission having oversight. That is a group of individuals who are appointed by the Governor. The amendment did not contain the word casino but rather referred to lottery gaming facility. That wording will appear on any ballots for a vote.
Several counties had already had non-binding votes on the wishes of the citizens involving their views on casino gambling in their locations. The bill exempts the necessity to have another “legal” vote on the issue for those counties who have already had a non-binding vote. It makes Kansas the first state in the nation to have state-owned casinos. The jury is still out as to who will be sued if damage or harm is done on those properties.
There were lots of concerns about the amendment and very few answers. After it was voted onto the bill, the person who carried the bill happily went to the mike and stated that it was time to spend the money. Many of us started to offer amendments that would place the dollars in places that we felt there were good causes, but each amendment was voted down. Individuals who had concerns about problems that could occur from the expansion offered amendments that would call for accountability or protection for consumers, but they too were rejected.
There was a certain group of people who had agreed ahead of time that they would not allow anything to change the content of the bill. A representative from the Saline County area had made a comment at the mike that his area had not been included in the “deal.” He was a strong advocate for the bill and so I had an amendment drafted that would include his area for a casino. The amendment reads: “And (4) the north central Kansas gaming zone, which consists of Saline county.” As I expected, the representative voted against the amendment and it was defeated as well.
The accusation that was made against my amendment at Eggs and Issues by a young woman was that I had carried an amendment that would have placed casinos in every county. That is untrue. I have a copy of the amendment and would be happy to forward it to anyone who is interested. I think that it is fair for those of you who want casino gambling in Kansas to know that the bill gives less to Kansas than the receipts to many other recently approved gaming states. The current tax rate summary is as follows: Maine, 61 percent; Rhode Island, 60 percent; Pennsylvania, 52 percent plus a $50 million privilege fee; Florida, 50 percent; and Kansas, 22 percent.
It seems obvious that the person who wrote the amendment was a strong advocate for the future casino. There has been a lot of pressure to push for casinos in Kansas and a lot of money has been spent on lobbyists to get it done. Kansas now has 20 full time lobbyists for gambling.
Thanks for all of you who took the time to read this lengthy explanation and who showed up to learn about this at Eggs and Issues. I promised there that if I was in error I would publicly apologize. I did not tell an untruth. I would like to ask Ms. Fowler to make a public apology to me for making a statement about my actions that was totally untrue. I look forward to talking with any of you who are interested in more information on the topic or who wish to express your views on this.
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Isn't this Fowler the lady that ran against Mast in November? Sounds like since she can't win on merits she has to make stuff up to get into office.
April 4, 2007 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
Sounds like Peggy has a burr up her bottom--as usual. She is SO defensive! Accusatory! Paranoid? Hmmmm.
April 5, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Yea, someone accusing you of something you NEVER did or stood for shouldn't get you excited. You should just sit back and take it all in stride, right? mythoughts, you're really something else. Or is it Ms. Fowler?
April 6, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
demo1957 (anonymous) says...
Is she really trying to protect Kansas citizens or one of her largest business contributors from having more competition. She accepted a large contribution before the last legislative session from the Prairie Band Indian Casino.
April 6, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
I think the same could be asked of Sebelius. She's taken thousands from the pro-gambling industry, so why is it Mast is questioned and not Sebelius. Not to mention that the new gambling bill gives oversight of the new casinos to the Governors Gaming Committee, which is soley appointed by Sebelius. Why hasn't this been in the press alongside your observations?
April 9, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
demo1957 (anonymous) says...
Because Mast opened her mouth to try to portect her large contributor the prairie band casino from competition. Kathleen made it no secret she supported gaming.
April 9, 2007 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Concerned_Emporian (anonymous) says...
Just to clarify-- the "Ms. Fowler" that Peggy Mast referred to was Kelsey Fowler who is a legislative aide in Topeka and was in the House session when all of the gaming discussion took place. Mast's opponent last fall was Susan Fowler-- and she has remained quiet on the issue. At the Eggs and Issues forum, Kelsey was asking why Mrs. Mast had proposed several amendments supporting gaming, if as she says, she is violently opposed to the activity. It did seem like a contradiction of position.
April 9, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )